This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Good Neighbor Authority | |
|---|---|
| Name | Good Neighbor Authority |
| Established | 2014 (pilot programs), expanded 2018 |
| Jurisdiction | United States federal lands and state forests |
| Parent agency | United States Department of Agriculture; United States Forest Service |
| Legal authority | Farm Bill; Healthy Forests Restoration Act (contextual) |
| Website | (omitted) |
Good Neighbor Authority Good Neighbor Authority allows states to enter agreements with the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Forest Service to perform restoration, hazardous fuels reduction, and watershed work on federal lands using state contracting and workforce. The authority builds on policy precedents from programs involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and cooperative arrangements with states like California, Oregon, and Arizona to address wildfire risk, forest health, and infrastructure restoration. Proponents cite examples from collaborations with entities such as the Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and state forestry agencies, while critics raise concerns echoed in debates involving the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and members of the United States Congress.
Good Neighbor Authority traces to provisions in the 2014 Farm Bill pilot programs and was expanded in the 2018 Farm Bill, framed within statutes governing the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Forest Service. Legal foundations intersect with authorities and precedents from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, cross-boundary agreements modeled on the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, and interagency memoranda involving the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state forestry departments like the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). Implementation relies on federal contracting principles codified in laws such as the Federal Acquisition Regulation and has been discussed in hearings before committees like the United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the United States House Committee on Natural Resources.
Participating agencies include the United States Forest Service as the primary federal partner and state forestry agencies from states including Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Federal collaborators have included the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service in cooperative contexts. Stakeholders often involve non-governmental organizations like the The Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the Trust for Public Land, as well as regional commissions such as the Western Governors' Association and tribal authorities including the Navajo Nation and Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
Projects under Good Neighbor Authority commonly include hazardous fuels reduction, prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, road and trail maintenance, riparian restoration, watershed rehabilitation, invasive species control, and post-disturbance salvage and reforestation. Specific project examples connect to historic efforts like restoration after the Hayman Fire, post-burn recovery in landscapes affected by the Camp Fire (2018), watershed work related to the Colorado River Basin, and invasive species treatments akin to programs addressing cheatgrass incursions. Partnerships have enabled state-led contracting for timber sales, ecosystem services projects similar to initiatives by the Ecosystem Services Market Consortium, and projects aligned with conservation easement tools used by the Land Trust Alliance.
Administration of Good Neighbor Authority agreements involves program managers in regional United States Forest Service offices, state forestry directors, contracting officers, and legal counsel to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Implementation draws on operational models from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, tools from the Integrated Resource Restoration approach, and consultation frameworks used in Tribal Consultation and cooperative agreements exemplified by the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units. Performance monitoring may use metrics like acres treated, stream miles restored, carbon sequestered, and jobs reported to agencies such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics and funding oversight bodies like the Office of Management and Budget.
Funding for Good Neighbor Authority projects combines federal appropriations to the United States Forest Service, state budget allocations, receipts from timber sales, and grants from foundations such as the Packard Foundation and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Financial mechanisms have included retained receipts under authorities similar to accounts used in the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 context, cost-share agreements with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and collaborative funding through programs like the Landscape Scale Restoration and private investments from entities modeled on the Forest Resilience Bond. Congressional appropriations and budget oversight by committees such as the House Appropriations Committee affect scale and duration.
Projects under Good Neighbor Authority must comply with environmental laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and tribal trust responsibilities reflected in case law such as United States v. Winans precedents. Environmental review processes often invoke analyses comparable to those in the Forest Service Land Management Planning Rule and engage stakeholders from conservation groups like the Audubon Society and the Defenders of Wildlife. Regulatory concerns have prompted litigation involving parties including the Center for Biological Diversity and drawn review from federal judicial circuits such as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Advocates cite outcomes including accelerated hazardous fuels treatments, increased acres restored, improved watershed health, and strengthened state-federal partnerships, with case studies reported by the Government Accountability Office and evaluations by research institutions like Weyerhaeuser-funded analyses or university programs at Oregon State University and the University of California, Berkeley. Reported economic impacts include job creation reflected in local workforce data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and revenue streams from timber markets linked to firms like Weyerhaeuser and PotlatchDeltic. Criticisms center on concerns raised by the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and some members of the United States Congress about environmental protections, scope creep, and transparency; others point to administrative challenges highlighted by GAO reports and oversight hearings in the United States House Committee on Natural Resources.
Category:United States environmental law Category:United States Forest Service programs